Uvalde Shooting Spotlights Daniel Defense

Stagpanther said:
Maybe--but none of the guys I've talked to that have been in combat and used the M4/M16 have said anything like that. My point isn't that it's a weapon of war, it's that it has unique characteristics that make it extremely efficient--one of the best-- for putting a lethal round on target quickly and accurately.
Click to expand...
I carried an M16 in Vietnam. I went through Basic Training and AIT with the M14, never saw an M16 until I arrived in Vietnam. Mostly we hated the M16, and a lot of the guys really really REALLY wanted their M14s back. Other guys had their families send them 12-gauge shotguns.

Back then, Mattel (yes, the toy company) had one of the subcontracts for supplying M16 stocks, so many of them literally said "Made by Mattel." And the running joke was that the M16 was about as useful as a Mattel toy rifle.
 
Last edited:
Mattel (yes, the toy company" had one of the subcontracts for supplying M16 stocks,...
Click to expand...

"The Mighty Mattel" nickname was still in use when I was in the service in the mid/late 70s.

Did some digging into the legend a while back, and the best information I came across was that Mattel did not actually produce the M16 stocks for the Army.

Mattel was involved in the creation of the molds that made the stocks, being one of the leading experts in injection molded plastics at the time.

I found no proof, but its not impossible Mattel put their name on the molds (or perhaps only the pilot mold?) where it might have been imprinted onto the stock, starting the story when some troop saw it. If there is photographic proof that some M16 stocks said "made by Mattel", I've never seen or heard of it.

but what about the Carcano? Nobody in the US used one of those for another political murder since Kennedy.
Click to expand...

We've had very few political murders since 1968, but I do believe you're right that no one has used an Italian milsurp bolt action sold mail order at a budget price to kill any US political figures since JFK (or before JFK, either).
What's your point??
 
Only that some "copycat" killers may use AR-15s because that's what the previous guy used, but using a rifle in an assassination that had profound, far-reaching effects was not sufficient to induce subsequent assassins choose that make or model.
 
Only that some "copycat" killers may use AR-15s because that's what the previous guy used, but using a rifle in an assassination that had profound, far-reaching effects was not sufficient to induce subsequent assassins choose that make or model.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly because of the method of assassination wasn't adopted. When firearms are used by single attackers, the assassination is usually conducted from close range with a handgun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_by_firearm

Also, weapon choice seems to be hugely dictated by availability. You don't find a given weapon type used repeatedly in a part of the world where the weapon isn't fairly common.
 
This comment is farther into the weeds.
Oh well.

The selection of the Carcano might have been because it was $12. 50,from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. They had ads resembling Shotgun News ads in many magazines,maybe Popular Mechanics,etc. I remember them.
This was before the GCA of 1968.
It was simple mail order.Ordering a rifle from a magazine ad was pretty much as simple as ordering a pair of sox from Amazon today.

Prior to the GCA of 1968,I spent time browsing the "Service Armament Catalogue"

The reader was free to order 455 Webleys!! (to repel the terrorist) and also Boys .55 anti tank rifles. And Lahti 20 mm semi auto anti tank rifles.Ammo,too,at about $1.50 a round,IIRC

Or,if you prefer,Solothurn semi-autos were available.I forget the cartridge,but it was at least 20mm.
Tanks? Half tracks? British Ferret Armored cars? They had them all for sale.
I recall 60 mm mortars. Not sure if they had larger.

Plenty of hardware available. The Carcano?

Without going into all of the alternative versions of how JFK was murdered,
it apparently was enough for LHO to play his role,whatever that may have been.
To spare the mods, I'm not the one who brought up the Carcano.
I'm sure they would prefer we do not offer up our theories on "What Really Happened"
 
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy said:
Also, weapon choice seems to be hugely dictated by availability. You don't find a given weapon type used repeatedly in a part of the world where the weapon isn't fairly common.
Click to expand...
If you look at the numerous school attacks (and massacres) in China over the last several years, the vast majority have been with knives. In the Philippines, the weapon of choice seems to be machetes.

As we used to say about drag racing in the misspent days of my youth, "Ya run what ya brung."

Oh, and what the politicians are telling is about these sorts of massacres only happening in the USA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_primary_schools#cite_note-74
 
First point, we are not opening the JFK assassination can of worms here. Period.

Next point, America is different from other places in more ways than can be counted. The only consistent point in common is that we are all here, on Earth. Any, and sometimes every thing is different in different places.

One of the things we have here (not necessarily unique to the US) is our news media shows us what they want to show us, in order to make money, and sometimes promote the political viewpoints of the people who own and direct the companies.

"if it bleeds, it leads" is the SOP these days. The more dramatic the event, the more press it gets, and the longer it stays in the news. They say "its just good business"...and it is, for the news sellers. For the rest of us? Lately, I've been thinking...."not so much".

We have knife/blade attacks in the US. They usually don't get a lot of press.
We have situations where armed citizens successfully defend themselves and others. Again, they typically don't get much press. An armed citizen defending themselves and failing gets a lot of press...

The market in Buffalo had an armed security guard. He shot the bad guy, but the bad guy had body armor and was not stopped. One of NY's responses was to pass another law, banning body armor....
That is still mentioned in the press.
In Charlotte W.Virginia, reported May 28, a guy with an AR-15 started shooting at a graduation party. A woman at the party, legally armed and not any kind of security or off duty police, drew her pistol and shot him, DRT. No one else was injured. You can still look it up on the net, but it was out of "the news" the next day.

I believe this kind of news does have an impact on shaping public opinion, though we can debate how much.

Which brings me to the point about "why" the killers do what they do and choose what they choose. I think the entire idea of suing gun makers over their advertising is a fantasy made real.

NO one can know what goes on inside a person's head, except that person. NO ONE. The most we can know is what they tell us, if they tell us anything, and anything they tell us could be a lie.

I think anyone claiming otherwise is selling something / looking for some kind of profit.

Sure, some of the killers are using AR's because that's what they have, or could get, either legally, or by theft or even murder. But I also think some of them choose an AR because it has been well publicized that others have used them in mass killings, as well.
 
The AR-15 is simply an efficient tool for the primary job of killing people. It also works well in other roles. It's an inanimate object without a conscience or will of its own; it takes on the will of It's possessor. While we live in a world where homicide is generally regarded as evil, at the same time it is considered justifiable on so many levels, that it's inevitable that weaponry would evolve to such capabilities, and continue to evolve. Apparently, the rifle is a legitimate product.
I do think that those who choose to manufacture such serious products should be circumspect about their advertising choices and maybe refrain from humorous ads; someone not humoured might sue...Still doesn't make them culpable, though.
I suspect that nothing good will come of this tragedy. We could get better gun laws but will likely get worse.
 
The gun control issue will not reach a common-sense conclusion. We have two options:

1) Ban all guns (Focus on the tool)
2) Ban all individuals who misuse guns for criminal acts (focus on the user)

A quick review of the recidivism rate of criminals shows between 2005-2012 a reduction in the rate of return to prison as defined after 3 years of release (50% to 39%), but no such rate reduction in the rate of re-arrests (77% to 71%). “Public Order Offenses” include weapons violations, and The share of rearrests for weapons offenses remained relatively stable between those released in 2005 and 2012 (at 9.1% and 9.4%, respectively),……” (Recidivism Rates: What You Need to Know - Council on Criminal Justice (counciloncj.org)

So putting offenders in jail (if they start prosecuting again) will apparently not reduce the recidivism rate to zero. But eliminating the user certainly will.
 
Hopefully, we can do better than that. But looking at past performance, it looks like people can't find common ground to build on. The attitude, " If you're not with us, you're against us.", continues to prevail. Creative neutrality is vilified by both extremes. Thus positive progress that safeguards the 2nd ammendment is not the most likely outcome. I live in Oregon and this State has remained a lot more respectful of the RKBA than two of It's neighbors.... But all of that is at risk of changing very soon. It looks like the US Senate might be bringing some federal changes as well.
 
It's an inanimate object without a conscience or will of its own; it takes on the will of It's possessor.
Click to expand...

The first part is right, the last part I must disagree with. It does NOT take on the will of its possessor. Stating it that way implies is has a will of its own, and that is simply not the case.

Inanimate object, no life, no will, entirely and solely under the control of the user, for good, or evil.

I suspect that nothing good will come of this tragedy.
Click to expand...

Some good has already come from the Uvalde killings. Not a lot, but some. For the first time I can recall, two things have happened. First, debate in Congress is actually looking at things other than just more gun control. and Second, surprisingly, is several famous Hollywood types are asking for changes in the way guns are portrayed in movies. They're asking for a more responsible portrayal, which, I don't think has ever happened before.

The gun control issue will not reach a common-sense conclusion. We have two options:

1) Ban all guns (Focus on the tool)
2) Ban all individuals who misuse guns for criminal acts (focus on the user)
Click to expand...

How is door #2 NOT common sense???
 
I found no proof, but its not impossible Mattel put their name on the molds (or perhaps only the pilot mold?) where it might have been imprinted onto the stock, starting the story when some troop saw it. If there is photographic proof that some M16 stocks said "made by Mattel", I've never seen or heard of it.
Click to expand...
Correct.

1. No Armalite/Colt/H&R/GM/Mattel official has ever confirmed a business relationship between an M16 maker and Mattel.

2. No paperwork confirming any business relationship between the military or an M16 maker and Mattel has ever been produced.

3. Not a SINGLE one of the items in question has ever been produced. That's pretty impressive when you consider that there are still a number of Pedersen devices in spite of the military's dedicated efforts to destroy them all.

4. There are no confirmed photographs of any of the items.

5. There is, in fact, no hard evidence of any kind.

6. It is rare for a firearm maker to contract parts out to another maker and then allow that contractor to stamp the delivered parts with their own trademark. And there are a LOT of instances of firearm makers contracting out parts (or even entire firearms) to other makers. The only exceptions I can think of are night sights or other semi-custom sights, or handgun grips when those grips are very obviously of a type made only by the contractor in question. There is lots of evidence that none of the plastic M16 parts were stamped with manufacturer markings.
 
My chainsaws cut no wood unless I make them do so. They are marvelous tools, yet can do nothing without an operator. Statistically more dangerous than leaving a loaded pistol in your home while you are away, there are darn few I will allow to run them. And my Axe? Forget about it, you ain't touching it.
Maybe we should have chainsaw and axe regulations to keep them away from the unqualified and those who might commit crimes with them....
 
I researched this years ago, and the only thing that came up mas the Mattell Marauder, a realistic toy version of the M16 that was marketed starting in 1966. That could be where the misconception came from.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of us have been down that rabbit hole. Just imagine how much one of those stocks (common claim) or receivers (less common claim) would command from collectors if they actually existed.

What I found interesting about the claimed stories of the markings is that the markings are not in the same place.

There were 5 basic types of buttstock, all very similar, , but not made by Mattel.
https://armamentresearch.com/variations-in-early-ar-15-m16-rifle-buttstocks/

Nice Discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFcue0oYv4M
 
Pathfinder45 said:
The AR-15 is simply an efficient tool for the primary job of killing people. It also works well in other roles. It's an inanimate object without a conscience or will of its own; it takes on the will of It's possessor.
Click to expand...
Inanimate objects don't "take on the will" of anyone, any more than they have a will of their own. They are inanimate objects. Objects don't have a will, and an object cannot "take on" the will of any person. If it could do that, it wouldn't be an inanimate object.
 
I don't know if it still true today, but not long ago crime stats showed fists and feet killed more people in the USA every year than long guns.

I understand, the impact of of a school shooting is gut wrenching.

We can compare it to a commercial airline crash . A horrific event.

Its still true that commercial airlines are among the safest ways to travel.
(Yet I prefer to drive)

Cars are far more dangerous. And schools are among the safest places for kids to be.

True,we don't hear of 20 people being killed by a wild man kicking and punching. Yet we have to look at the total number across the country in a year. Where is the call for amputating fists and feet?

A terrorist driving a truck down a crowded sidewalk can kill a mass of people. Its been done. Must we all drive MoPeds?

Politicians and media exploit fear for control. Its not difficult to target a people or object as a target for fear.

A decade or two ago, the renegade threat was the "SUV" . "SUV kills family cat" "SUV kills family"

Vietnam and years after it was "Ex Green Beret" Those guys!! Remember "The Coming Ice Age" from the 1970's. Eating eggs would kill you.

ANTIFA and BLM get a pass for Seattle,Portland, Kenosha,etc,but those darn Jan 6 insurrectionists!! ( Note, I'm not part of any of those.I don't like mobs)

Lets try to not be manipulated by propaganda.
 
You make sense; I could not agree with you more.

I was going to stay out of this thread since I got in hot water for an unintended 'breach of the peace' but have to add one tidbit to what you wrote.

On Dec. 2, 2015 a couple of terrorists shot up a Christmas party in San Bernadino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack - 14 people were killed and 22 injured. It was in the news for a long time and people were outraged.

Two days later, in Cairo, Egypt, a pair of disgruntled young men firebombed a restaurant/bar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Cairo_restaurant_fire and killed 17, and wounded six.

Made the news, for a day or so, then forgotten.

The problem is that the gun-ban people are not bargaining in good faith, their goal is not to minimize the number of dead or injured, their goal is civilian disarmament. We err when we lose sight of that.

Someone said that 'you can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' I do not recall for sure, wasn't living at the time, but the quote is sometimes attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

I maintain that the American People, easily manipulated and lead as we can be, are just not that stupid all of the time, about issues that directly affect them. Note the recent spike in gun-buying as societal norms erode. People see through more of the deceit than they get credit for. As someone on this Forum (might have been you) recently said, the only poll I trust is the one in November every two years.

I do recall (having been alive and aware at the time) that subsequent to the 1994 AWB, the mid-terms were a disaster for the banners. We may be looking at a similar development now. Or I may be too stupidly optimistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top